Community response to annual flooding and Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) : the case of Oshakati Town

(1)

Community response to annual flooding and Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR): The case of Oshakati Town, Namibia.

LV Shaamhula

Mini-dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degreeMaster of Development and Management at the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University

Supervisor: K Fourie Co-supervisor: L Kruger March 2015

(2)

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I praise and give thanks to God, the Almighty for His showers of blessings throughout my research work and for providing me with this opportunity and granting me the capability to proceed successfully.

I am so grateful to the African Centre of Disaster Studies (ACDS) for financial assistance and making it possible for me to study at North-West University.

I would like to express my special appreciation and thanks to my supervisors Kristel Fourie and Leandri Hildebrandt for your excellent supervising ideas throughout this study. I would like to thank you for encouraging my research and allowing me to grow as a research scientist. Your advice on both research as well as on my career have been priceless.

A special thanks to my family. Words cannot express how grateful I am to my parents for all of the sacrifices that you have made on my behalf. Your prayer for me was what sustained me thus far. I would also like to thank all of my friends who supported me in writing and motivated me to strive towards my goal. At the end I would like express appreciation to my spiritual mother for everyday word of encouragement. I do not know what I would do without those motivating words every morning. Thank you all, may the Almighty God abundantly bless you all.

(3)

Summary

Disaster risk Reduction (DRR) is well known and practiced in many nations. Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) is a sub-component of DRR which is slowly being practiced in most at risk communities. However, there are still gaps regarding the principles and guidelines that guide the process of CBDRR. This study stipulates numerous guiding principles that govern the processes of CBDRR activities. These are: traditional knowledge, understanding of community members, capacity of community members, community participation, political will and training of community members. Furthermore the study used the guidelines to evaluate which activities by the Oshakati community members relate to the principles and guidelines of CBDRR as a way of reducing the risk of recurring floods in the community. Through focus group discussions and semi-structured individual interviews, it was found that the community members in Oshakati adhere to most principles of CBDRR such as the use of traditional knowledge, community members having the capacity to work together to solve common societal problems and to understand community structures. However, guidelines such as community participation, political will and training of community members were not adhered to due to various challenges such as the lack of institutional capacity and limited resources. The findings further stipulate that those guidelines were not adhered to due to inadequate knowledge on DRR and lack of support from the local government due to limited availability of resources. The study recommends that in order for the local government to reduce the risk of recurring floods in the community, the local government need to build capacity of its personnel working directly with DRR aspects. These can be achieved through a shift in the approach of responding to flooding to being proactive, creating awareness regarding the hazard and ensuring genuine participation of community members into local government CBDRR activities.

Key Words:Disaster Risk Reduction, Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction, Community Members, Hazards, Floods, Oshakati, Development.

(4)

Opsomming

Ramprisiko-bestuur is welbekend en word wereldwyd uitgevoer. Gemeenskapgebaseerde bestuur is 'n onderafdeling van ramprisiko-bestuur en word al meer in hoe-risiko gemeenskappe implementeer. Gapings betreffende die beginsels en riglyne vir die prosesse van gemeenskapgebaseerde ramprisiko-bestuur is egter steeds sigbaar. Hierdie studie stipuleer die verskeie rigtinggewende beginsels wat die prosesse van gemeenskapgebaseerde ramprisiko-bestuursaktiwiteite beheer. Hierdie beginsels en riglyne is tradisionele kennis, insig en begrip van gemeenskapslede, kapasiteit van gemeenskapslede, gemeenskapsdeelname, politieke wil en die opleiding van gemeenskapslede. Die studie het ook die riglyne toegepas om te bepaal watter aktiwiteite wat deur die Oshakati gemeenskapslede uitgevoer word om die risiko van vloede in die gemeenskap te verminder, wel verband hou met die beginsels en riglyne van gemeenskapgebaseerde ramprisiko-bestuur. Fokusgroep besprekings en semi-gestruktureerde individuele onderhoude onthul dat tradisionele kennis en die kapasiteit om saam te werk ten einde 'n gemeenskaplike sosiale probleem op te los en gemeenskapstrukture beter te verstaan, die twee beginsels is wat deur die Oshakati-gemeenskap toegepas word in die uitoefening van gemeenskap gebaseerde ramprisiko-bestuursaktiwiteite. Die riglyne van gemeenskapsdeelname, politieke wil en opleiding van gemeenskapslede word egter nie toegepas nie as gevolg van die gebrek aan institusionele kapasiteit en beperkte hulpbronne. Die studie bevindings toon verder dat hierdie riglyne ook nie toegepas is nie omrede daar onvoldoende kennis oor ramrisikobestuur is asook 'n gebrek aan ondersteuning vanaf die plaaslike regering as gevolg van die beperkte beskikbaarheid van hulpbronne binne die plaaslike regering. Die studie beveel aan dat die plaaslike regering fokus op die uitbou van die kapasiteit van hul personeel wat direk in ramprisikobestuur betrokke is, ten einde die risiko van terugkerende vloede in die gemeenskap te verminder. Dit kan bereik word deur die benadering om te reageer op vloede te vervang met 'n proaktiewe benadering van bewusmaking ten opsigte van die vloede en so te verseker dat werklike deelname deur gemeenskapslede in die plaaslike regering se gemeenskapgebaseerde ramprisiko-bestuursaktiwiteite plaasvind.

(5)

Sleutelwoorde:Ramprisiko-vermindering, Gemeenskapgebaseerde ramprisiko-bestuur, Gemeenskapslede, gevaar, Vloede, Oshakati, Ontwikkeling.

(6)

Contents (Continued)

2.4. PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES OF CBDRR ... 23

2.4.1. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CBDRR AND DEVELOPMENT THEORY... 23

2.4.2 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE ... 25

2.4.3 UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMUNITY STRUCTURES ... 28

2.4.4 CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS... 30

2.4.5 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ... 33

2.4.6 POLITICAL WILL... 36

2.4.7 TRAINING OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS... 39

2.5 CONCLUSION ... 40

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 41

3.2. RESEARCH DESIGN... 41

3.3. RESEARCH METHODS ... 44

3.3.1. STUDY POPULATION AND SAMPLING... 44

3.3.2 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS... 47

3.3.2.1 FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS ... 47

3.3.2.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ... 48

3.4. DATA ANALYSIS ... 49

3.4.1 THEMATIC DATA ANALYSIS ... 49

3.4.1.1. FAMILIARISATION OF DATA AND CODING... 49

(8)

Contents (Continued)

3.4.1.3. CONSTRUCTING THE THEMES NETWORK... 50

3.4.1.4 DESCRIBE AND EXPLORE THE THEMATIC NETWORKS ... 50

3.4.1.5. SUMMARISE THE THEMATIC NETWORK ... 51

3.4.1.6. INTERPRET PATTERNS ... 51

3.5. LIMITATIONS... 51

3.6 CONCLUSION ... 52

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS... 53

4.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS ... 53

4.2.1.1 USE OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE... 55

4.2.2. UNDERSTANDING OF COMMUNITY STRUCTURES ... 57

4.2.2.1 DYNAMICS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS ... 58

4.2.2.2 THE ROLE OF LOCAL OR RELIGIOUS LEADERS... 61

4.2.3. CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS ... 63

4.2.3.1. CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO TAKE PART IN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ... 64

4.2.3.1.1 OSHAKATI COMMUNITY MEMBER’S PARTICIPATION IN MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL ACTIVITIES ... 64

4.2.3.1.2. CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY CROSSING POINTS ... 66

4.2.3.1.3. BUILDING OF COMMUNITY BRIDGES ... 67

4.2.3.2. INCAPABILITY OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO COPE WITH THE FLOOD IMPACTS ... 69

(9)

Contents (Continued)

4.2.4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ... 70

4.2.4.1 INTERACTION BETWEEN COMMUNITIES AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ... 71

4.2.5. POLITICAL WILL... 73

4.2.5.1 OSHAKATI MASTER PLAN ... 74

4.2.5.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORTING LOCAL INITIATIVES... 76

4.2.5.3 INFORMATION DISSEMINATION (TRAINING WORKSHOP) ... 78

4.2.5.4. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO REDUCE RISKS ... 80

4.2.5.5. FOCUS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S ACTIVITIES ... 82

4.2.5.6 INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS ... 83

4.2.6. TRAINING ... 85

4.3. CONCLUSION ... 86

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 53

5.2 PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES OF CBDRR ... 87

5.2.1.1 USE OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE... 88

5.2.2. UNDERSTANDING OF COMMUNITY STRUCTURES ... 89

5.2.2.1. DYNAMICS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS IN OSHAKATI... 90

5.2.2.2 THE ROLE OF LOCAL OR RELIGIOUS LEADERS IN OSHAKATI ... 91

5.2.3. CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS ... 93

5.2.3.1. CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO TAKE PART IN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ... 93

(10)

Contents (Continued)

5.2.3.2 INCAPABILITY OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO COPE WITH THE

FLOOD IMPACTS ... 95

5.2.4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ... 95

5.2.4.1. INTERACTION BETWEEN COMMUNITIES AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ... 96

5.2.5. POLITICAL WILL... 99

5.2.5.1. OSHAKATI MASTER PLAN ... 99

5.2.5.2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORTING LOCAL INITIATIVES... 100

5.2.5.3. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION (TRAINING WORKSHOP) ... 101

5.2.5.4. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO REDUCE RISKS ... 103

5.2.5.5. FOCUS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES ... 105

5.2.5.6. INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS IN RISK REDUCTION ACTIVITIES ... 106

5.2.6. TRAINING ... 107

5.3. CONCLUSION ... 109

ANNEXURES... 112

(11)

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Key five priority areas of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) ... 17

Figure 2: Some of the local initiatives to block water from entering the residential areas ... 65

Figure 3: Some of the local initiatives to block water from entering the residential areas ... 66

Figure 4: Local Government assisting in some local initiatives. ... 76

Figure 5: Provided Relocation Camps... 77

Figure 6: Various stakeholders assisting during flooding ... 84

List of Tables Table 1: Guidelines and Identified Themes ... 53

(12)

CHAPTER 1: ORIENTATION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

1.1 Introduction

Today, the world is facing increases in natural hazards at an exceptional rate (Guha-Sapir et al., 2004:13). Natural hazards are defined as natural processes or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health related impacts (UNISDR, 2009:20). Between 1994 and 2003, natural hazards affected about 68 million to 618 million people throughout the world (Guha-Sapiret al., 2004:13).

Floods are one of the main types of natural hazards experienced in developing countries (Jonkman, 2005:152). Floods are known to have great impact in urban areas, where development changes the natural environments (Rebele, 1994:173). For example in 2006 and 2007 in Luanda, the capital city of Angola, cholera outbreaks peaked due to floods and about 83 520 people were affected and almost 3 140 died (Schmuck, 2012:243). Another example is the floods of Mozambique through the Zambezi River which affected about 20% of the country’s population and when around 800 people lost their lives in 2000 (Schmuck, 2012: 252).

The increased occurrence of natural hazards in urban areas, coupled with higher urbanisation in cities as a result of rapid and unplanned growth, can lead to increased risk in some instances (Arku, 2009:254). Potential consequences of floods in urban areas include overwhelming economic losses, large affected populations and serious environmental damage (Galindo & Batta, 2013:1). Cities are becoming high producers of new risks due to failed infrastructure and services, environmental degradation and increased informal settlements (Fatti & Patel, 2013:13). While urban settlements are known to serve a nations’ economic needs and living evidence of a nations’ ethnical traditions; cities are becoming high producers of new risks due to failed infrastructure, environmental degradation and increased informal settlements (Fatti & Patel, 2013:13). Additionally, urban areas are believed to be growing as a result of natural population growth, rural-urban migration and reclassification of rural or peri-urban areas (Fatti & Patel, 2013:13).

(13)

At the same time, natural hazards and the impact of climate change pose the greatest threats to urban residents (Williams & Jacobs, 2011:187). Urbanisation has been taking place even though people recognise and understand the increasing risk of natural hazards in urban areas (Douglas et al., 2008:200). This is observed in cities in the developing world where marginal areas, with poor service provision are mostly inhabited by the poorest people in cities (Fatti & Patel, 2013:13). As a result, a huge number of poor people are hard hit by the impact of hazards in cities in terms of losing their homes, food becoming scarce and going through emotional aftershocks (Fatti & Patel, 2013:13). This corroborates with the view that in developing countries, natural hazards tend to result in a greater number of people affected than in global developed countries (El-Masri & Tipple, 2002:158).

As a way of reducing the diverse impacts of such hazards, studies have indicated that specific Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) initiatives should pay particular attention to people directly affected (Eiser et al., 2012:5). Since communities constitute the first people to react to hazards, they should be placed at the centre of any risk reduction initiatives at large (Ferdinand et al., 2012:85). According to Delica-Willison & Gaillard (2012:711) community refers to a small aggregate of people, often located away from centres of power but sharing a common and continuous way of life, similar beliefs, close ties, trust and frequent interactions.

Over the past years, countries have implemented Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) programmes as a means of enhancing people’s capacity to cope with natural hazards (Gaillard et al., 2008:383). The CBDRR concept suggests that ordinary people are capable of finding collective solutions to situations that they face (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:711). This concurs with development scholars’ views that stress the importance of cultural identity of local communities and participation at all levels (Servaes, 1995:45). Development therefore aims to build capacity and allows people to be involved in their own developmental processes. At the same time CBDRR programmes also aim to build capacity among local people so that they are able to assess the risk beforehand, identify, prioritise, plan and implement risk reduction measures at the community level (Gaillard et al., 2008:384). In that regard, emphasis should be placed on how communities understand and interpret risks and choose actions based on their interpretation and should be seen as vital to any strategy for disaster reduction (Eiser et al., 2012:5). While it is the

(14)

community members' own experiences, personal feelings, values, cultural beliefs, interpersonal and societal dynamics that usually shape community responses to hazards, local communities analyse their hazardous conditions, vulnerabilities and capacities just on the basis as they see them (Shaw, 2012:3).

CBDRR has been successfully implemented worldwide (Shaw, 2012:3). The Philippines provides a prime example of great success achieved in increasing community participation in risk reduction programmes, notably in flood-prone areas (Gaillard et al., 2008:393). This was achieved by training flood affected people to adjust their everyday lifestyles and not merely rely on extraordinary measures to face the hazards. While the community livelihood depended heavily on selling fish, crabs and prawns, which were threatened; the CBDRR concept encouraged changes in lifestyle, food and diet behaviours. Such changes included a shift from unproductive subsistence farming to cash aquaculture (Gaillardet al., 2008:393).

Today, CBDRR programmes coupled with development objectives have been recognised as some of the most sustainable ways to enhance people’s capacity to cope with natural hazards (Gaillard et al., 2008:392). In view of this, the study aims to draw on the CBDRR concept to explore how members of the community in Oshakati reduce the risk of flooding.

Oshakati is a town of about 37,000 inhabitants in the Oshana Region of Namibia. It is the regional capital town of the northern part of the country known as Ovamboland. Oshakati is one of Namibia's largest cities and it is located near the Namibia's main highway, which stretches from South Africa through Namibia's capital, Windhoek, on to the Angolan border.

Oshakati is situated in the Cuvelai-Etosha Basin and cut by the Okatana River. Both of these geographic features make the town prone to flooding and heavy floods hit it since 2008.

1.2 Problem Statement

Flooding is not a new phenomenon in the Oshakati community and annual flooding takes place since 2008 (Angula, 2010:2). During the annual floods, water swamps

(15)

nearby roads, homes and schools causing major property damage (Angula, 2010:2). Many people have been temporarily relocated to higher grounds because water has reached waist-height in some properties (Red Cross Society, 2009:3). The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) and private organisations has regularly provided temporary housing (such as tents) to flood victims. This solution has been the general response to appeals for help to flood victims and those who become homeless (Republic of Namibia, 2009:24). The floods are believed to be a result of two contributing factors: the Cuvelai system, which is water flowing from Angola on its way to the Etosha Pan and downpours that cause excessive amount of water (Republic of Namibia, 2009:52).

To that end, most of the studies about floods in Namibia document statistics about losses in educational facilities and agriculture, focusing on farmers mainly from the rural areas (Ministry of Education, 2011:16). However other impacts such as an average of about 246 schools that closed down completely because learners were at risk of drowning, increased number of snake bites, crop fields that submerged under water and the increased occurrence of water borne diseases are not always documented (Ministry of Education, 2011:20). However, recent floods have shown greater impact on urban centres probably because of the high population concentration resulting in more disruption of sewage facilities, higher rates in theft and house break-ins and a number of urban markets closing down due to high levels of water (Nakanyalaet al., 2012).

As a way of responding to the situation, communities react differently in terms of living with the floods. The problem under investigation is thus using the CBDRR principles to study how members of the community in Oshakati reduce the risk of flooding and hence find effective recommendations for managing the floods.

1.3 Research Questions

The study has the following research questions:

- What relevant literature is available on the principles and guidelines for CBDRR?

- Which activities by the Oshakati community members relate to the principles and guidelines of CBDRR?

(16)

- How does the literature on CBDRR compare with the activities undertaken by the Oshakati community members in support of CBDRR?

- What recommendations can the study offer for disaster risk measures based on CBDRR that can reduce future flooding impacts in Oshakati town?

1.4 Research Objectives

The study has the following objectives:

- To establish from relevant literature the principles and guidelines for Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction;

- To explore activities undertaken by Oshakati community members relevant to the principles and guidelines of CBDRR;

- Compare the literature on CBDRR and the activities undertaken by community members in Oshakati Town; and

- To offer recommendations for disaster risk measures based on CBDRR that can reduce future flooding impacts in Oshakati town.

1.5 Central Theoretical Statements

Since the local people are the ones affected when hazards occur, they become the first responders at household and community levels (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:712). Shortly after a hazard, victims engage quickly by gathering fallen materials, starting over and building shelters for their families and neighbours. Studies show that local communities are usually in a better position and have better insight to plan for initiatives concerning their own safety than external aid (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:714).

CBDRR consists of self-developed, culturally and socially acceptable, economically and politically feasible ways of coping with and avoiding crises that relate to natural hazards (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:714). This implies that local communities

(17)

analyse their hazardous conditions, vulnerabilities and capacities as they perceive them (Shaw, 2012:3).

Studies have shown that CBDRR activities are deeply rooted in the society and culture of an area. Therefore, community-based activities enable people to express their real needs and priorities (Gaillard et al., 2008:384). This allows for problems to be defined correctly and for appropriate responsive measures to be designed and implemented (Shaw, 2012:4). Furthermore, Benson et al., (2001:205) argue that the existence of community-based organisations allows people to respond to emergencies rapidly, efficiently and fairly. Therefore, available community resources (even if scarce) can be used economically. CBDRR encourages the formation of grassroots hazard response organisations and emphasises that the communities at risk should execute detailed analysis of hazardous situations (Shaw, 2012:3).

The concept of CBDRR is widely encouraged worldwide as one of the strategies that can be used at local levels to reduce underlying risks and hence reduce the impact of hazards (Izumi & Shaw, 2012:36). However, other scholars have indicated that communities may not always respond to risk warnings (Eiser et al., 2012:13). They argue that it is not because these communities are ‘irrational’, but because they feel constrained in terms of the options open to them to respond (Eiseret al., 2012:13). Whilst it has been implemented in many development programmes and other UN agencies, the concept of CBDRR has been criticised for being located in communities (area-based), without the process and outcomes being owned by communities (Izumi & Shaw, 2012:36). Lastly, despite the effort that people normally make to take part in any undertaking that will advance their interests, they need to understand the hazards issues entirely in order to participate fully. Delica-Willison & Gaillard (2012:721) argue that the CBDRR concept does not necessarily consider this.

1.6 Literature Review

The literature review entails a systematic and structured process of identifying relevant literature to be used in writing a research proposal and eventually a thesis

(18)

(Majam & Theron, 2006:25). In the literature review, the author engages in a specific process of knowledge generation.

Literature on CBDRR encourages a bottom up strategy of disaster risk reduction practice worldwide (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:713). Though CBDRR emerged in the 1970s, it was only formalised and widely promoted in the 1980s. This was achieved through the creation of national and international networks by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations involved in grassroots activities (Izumi & Shaw, 2012:36). Since then, many governments have been implementing it in regions such as South Asia and Africa (Fernandez et al., 2012:220). CBDRR programmes aim to build capacity among local people so that they are able to assess the risk beforehand, identify, prioritise, plan and implement risk reduction measures at the community level (Gaillardet al., 2008:384).

While the CBDRR concept aims to reduce local communities’ exposure to vulnerability by promoting alternative perspectives of dealing with the hazard, the practice of the CBDRR concept was criticised of being diverse due to a number of host factors. These include socio and cultural context of vulnerable communities and their level of economic development (ADPC, 2006:11). The CBDRR concept was also criticised of not having direct guidelines on how CBDRR projects should be implemented (ADPC, 2006:11).

To summarise, literature on CBDRR indicates CBDRR to be a well applied and successful concept. However, the researcher observes that little has been said on how it should be implemented. Recent reports highlight the need for a better understanding of communities’ immediate and adaptive capacity to respond to natural hazards (Innocent & Albrito, 2011:730). These offer some ‘food for thought’ on the underlying opportunities in enhancing the resilience of our communities towards the risks posed by weather-related hazards (Innocent & Albrito, 2011:730).

1.7 Research Methodology

This section focuses on the research methodology that was applied to execute the study. These include the research design, sampling and the instruments used in the

(19)

study. The study fulfilled its research objectives as outlined above by collecting information from primary sources. This was done through a qualitative approach.

1.7.1 Research Design

Research design comprises of a clear statement of the research problem, as well as plans for collecting, processing, and interpreting the observations/data that provide answers to the research question (Mouton et al., 2006:580). Quantitative research seeks explanations of few narrowly defined variables that have an impact on a scenario. Qualitative research seeks an in-depth description and interaction of multiple variables sometimes over a period of time (Neuman, 2006:672).

For this study, a qualitative research approach was necessary. Qualitative research approaches allow the researcher to have an understanding with a neutralist observation and with subjective exploration of reality from the perspective of an insider (De Vos et al., 2011:308). The study therefore needed to collect data on activities that the Oshakati community members undertake as ways of reducing the risk of flooding based on the CBDRR concept and allow the researcher to understand the views of the community members. Based on this need, it was more appropriate for the study to make use of a qualitative research design.

1.7.2 Sampling

A sample is derived from a population. Population refers to the study objects and consists of individuals, groups, organisations, human products and events and the conditions to which they are exposed (Patton, 2002:229).

Qualitative and quantitative research processes have similarities with regard to sampling and the pilot study (De Vos et al., 2011:391). However, it has been stipulated that there is no strict rules or guidelines on the exactness of a sample size for qualitative research (Patton, 2002:244).

(20)

In this study, a non-probability sampling method was used through a snowball sampling procedure for the local community members group. Whereas the local community members group consist of heads of households, a snowball sampling procedure was selected for this study based on one of the advantages it poses. The snowball sampling procedure gives a preference to key informants who, on account of their position or experience, have more information than regular group members and/or are better able to express such information (Welman et al., 2012:204). The study used this sampling method by first approaching a few heads of households from the relevant population (Welman et al., 2012:69). Whereas these individuals were both male and female of affected communities within Oshakati, these individuals then acted as informants who also identified other heads of households who may have the experience or information of interest. These participants were then included in the sample. As one participant leads to the other in identifying further sets of relevant individuals, the sample obtained was regarded as being representative of the relevant population (Welman et al., 2012:69). 60 respondents participated in the focus group discussions.

The second group of respondents consisted of respondents from the local government, school principals and chief nursing officers. Respondents from the local government were sampled using apurposive sampling method. Purposive sampling is described as a random selection of sampling units within the segment of the population with the most information on the characteristic of interest (Welman et al., 2012:207). This sampling method was used for these groups of respondents because they are directly involved and hence they were key informants in this area of interest. For this group, 10 respondents participated in the semi-structured individual interviews.

1.7.3 Data Collection Methods

The study made use of focus group discussions and semi-structured individual interviews. This was necessary as it enables the researcher to gather more information from the participants in a flexible manner (Patton, 2002:243). The structured interviews normally limit the information strictly to what is stated in the question outline.

(21)

Focus groups discussions sometimes described as group in-depth interviews, consist of a number of individuals that are drawn together for the purpose of expressing their opinions on a specific set of open questions (Welman et al., 2012:201). Focus groups discussions were selected for this study as it would allow the researcher to gather information that can perhaps not be collected easily through individual interviews (Welman et al., 2012:201). The study conducted nine different focus group discussions consisting of seven respondents per group. A total of 60 respondents participated in the focus group discussions.

The questions used during the focus group discussions were guided by the themes identified in literature. Whereby the literature consist of six guidelines of CBDRR, questions were constructed purposively to assess each of the CBDRR guidelines.

Semi-structured interviews consist of themes and questions to be analysed during the interviews. The researcher also has the flexibility of exploring other themes that come up during the interview (Welman et al., 2012:166). Semi-structured interviews were selected for this study based on its flexibility. Another advantage of using semi-structured interviews was that it allows the researcher to probe more with a view of clearing up vague responses as well as asking for further elaborations (De Vos et al., 2011:391). The study ensured reliability and validity of data obtained by making use of a digital recorder to capture every conversation with the permission of the respondents. For the local government group which consist of the officials within the Oshakati Town Council that directly work with disaster related aspects, chief nursing officers and school principals, ten semi-structured interviews were conducted.

The themes that were identified in literature, guided the questions to be used during the focus group discussions. As the literature consists of six guidelines of CBDRR, questions were constructed purposively to assess each of the CBDRR guidelines. The questions used on the local government group were designed differently from the questions used on the local community group. This is because each group have different information regarding each of the themes and also because each group plays a different role in the risk reduction process.

(22)

1.8 Data Analysis

Qualitative data analyses were applied to interpret the data derived from the interviews. Data analysis involves examining, sorting, categorising, evaluating, comparing, synthesising and reviewing the raw and recorded data (De Vos et al., 2011:391). The aim of the analysis of data is basically to transform raw data in the form of facts, perceptions and findings into understandable findings.

In order to transform the data into meaningful findings, thematic data analysis procedure was used in the study. Through this process the interviews and responses from the group discussions were reviewed, examined, sorted and categorised according to themes (Attride-Stirling, 2001:385). These themes were then evaluated and compared to describe the Oshakati community activities and answer the study objectives (Mayring, 2000:3).

1.9 Ethical Considerations

Regarding how interviewees were treated, the study undertook some of the ethical consideration measures deployed by (De Vos et al., 2011:115). This included how the information gathering was utilised without exposing the interviewees in any possible way. The study placed emphasis on two important elements of ethical consideration (De Voset al., 2011:115). These were:

- Voluntary participation, by ensuring that all participants were informed accordingly by giving a thorough description of the study; and

- Informed consent, by providing honest and thorough details about the purpose of the interview and the investigation.

Only then, willing participants were requested to participate in the interview otherwise those who were not willing where excused to leave the interview venue. In addition, anonymity and confidentiality regarding the responses of the participants were maintained. Regarding potential harm to participants, the researcher gave assurance of no physical and or emotional harm to be experienced by or caused to the participants (Welmanet al., 2012:201).

(23)

1.10 Significance of the study

The study is part of a global as well as national strategic effort to enhance communities’ capacity to cope with natural and human induced hazards. Furthermore, the study aims to support national efforts to minimise the loss of human lives and property due to floods. At the same time, the study aims to promote the use of Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction programmes at community level. Lastly, the study will generally contribute to the body of knowledge on Disaster Risk Reduction.

1.11 Chapter layout

The study follows a structure as described below:

Chapter one introduces the topic of the study; it introduces the focus as well as the overview of the study. This chapter highlights the problem statement and it also briefly gave an overview on the research methodology.

Chapter two discusses the literature regarding CBDRR as well as the principles and guidelines of CBDRR.

Chapter three provides a detailed discussion on the methodology used in the study. This includes the use of focus groups discussions, semi-structured individual interviews, sampling methods and recognised limitations in the study.

Chapter four gives a description of the findings of the study.

(24)

CHAPTER 2: PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES OF COMMUNITY BASED DISASTER RISK REDUCTION (CBDRR)

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents literature on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and more specifically Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR). Over the past years, scholars both internationally and in Africa have joined hands in emphasising the importance of DRR and later shifting the approach into making community members part of disaster risk reduction initiatives (UNISDR, 2005:175). This chapter will mainly focus on the history by considering the origin and development of CBDRR, the importance of CBDRR and explore the principles and guidelines that govern the CBDRR processes.

2.2. Origin of CBDRR

Over the past years, the world has witnessed an increase in economic losses and impacts due to natural hazards (Pandey & Okazaki, 2005:1). A combination of factors such as climatic events, high population densities and substandard housing conditions were found to contribute to cities in Africa becoming increasingly vulnerable to hazards (Parnell et al., 2007:357). The physical, social and economic losses caused by natural hazards are more severe in developing countries. The impacts of natural hazards also influence socio-economic conditions, tradition, culture and environment of the affected communities (Pandey & Okazaki, 2005:1).

As a way to deal with the impacts that natural hazards cause, there has been a progressive shift in the approach to these impacts (Innocenti & Albrito, 2011:730). One of the ways in which natural hazards and their impacts were approached is in the context of Disaster Management (DM). In the 1980 – 1989, Disaster Management approaches still only focused on preparedness to respond to hazards instead of focusing on the underlying risks that make people vulnerable (Van Niekerk, 2011:38; Shaw, 2012:5). The UNDP (1992:21) defines Disaster Management as “the body of policy and administrative decisions, and operational activities, which pertain to the various stages of hazards at all levels”. It has cycles

(25)

which involve prevention, mitigation, early warning and recovery (Gratwa & Bollin, 2002:19). During this time of DM, institutional hazard management practice worldwide has been predominantly employing a top-down strategy based on the assumption that exposure to natural hazards constitutes risk (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:713). The thinking and practices of this approach were more geared towards responding to emergencies, managing emergencies and aftershock recovery (Innocenti & Albrito, 2011:730; Pandey & Okazaki, 2005:1).

However, the process of DM encountered some challenges as all its activities and resources were geared towards catastrophic events (Arnold, 2012:610). The focus on the underlying causes of hazards (e.g. risks and vulnerability) in most cases was not considered (Van Niekerk, 2011:38). DM was perceived as the effective way to respond to hazards. However, it then excluded any involvement of communities at risk and most importantly did not pay attention to the underlying risk (Gratwa & Bollin, 2002:19).

The International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) declared by the United Nations for the decade 1990-1999 provoked the recognition that disaster risk reduction was a social and economic imperative aspect (ISDR, 2000:4). Through international action especially in the developing countries, the IDNDR intended to reduce loss of lives, poverty damage, social and economic disruption caused by natural hazards (ISDR, 2000:4). The IDNDR addresses major concerns in disaster risk management related to education, capacity development, social impact and vulnerability, civil society and public-private partnership, economic and health aspects, land use planning and environmental protection (IDNDR, 1999:7).

Through the IDNDR, a world conference on Disaster Reduction held in Yokohama, Japan was adopted in 1994. At the conference, the Yokohama Strategy and Plan for a safer world was adopted due to the realization that impact of natural hazards in terms of human and economic losses continue to rise and societies are becoming more vulnerable to such hazards (ISDR, 2000: 10). The Yokohama strategy played a major role in the development of a global culture of prevention and thereby led to the developing of the United Nations International Strategy for Reduction in the year 2000. The ISDR succeeded the IDNDR which highlights the integration of disaster risk reduction into the broader context of sustainable development and related

(26)

environmental considerations (UNISDR, 2009:20). Humanitarian groups and those NGOs that were directly involved in communities affected by hazards prioritised, through the UNISDR multiple efforts to address the limitations in DM (Gaillard et al., 2008:391). Only then the importance of focusing on what makes people vulnerable was realised (Gratwa & Bollin, 2002:20). This realisation was also motivated by observing that apart from the occurrence of hazards and people’s proximity and exposure to hazards, people also suffered because of prevailing socio-economic and political conditions that make them vulnerable to these natural hazards (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:713; Shaw, 2012:4; Allen, 2006:85). Based on this realisation the approach that had been used to deal with natural hazards then shifted to proactive approaches as ways to deal with the impacts caused by natural hazards.

Proactive approaches seek to understand why hazards happen by applying integrated holistic approaches to reduce the impacts of hazards as well as focusing on underlying risks (Bankoff, 2012:37). . The use of more proactive approaches to deal with the impacts of hazards led to what is referred to as Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (Bankoff, 2012:37). DRR has replaced the previously utilised top down approach, which mostly did not reached community members who are most affected by hazards (Maskrey, 1989). DRR now pays specific attention to these people, putting the most affected at the centre of initiatives (Eiser et al., 2012:5; Ferdinand et al., 2012:85). Disaster Risk Reduction acknowledges people at grassroots level through community based organisations, which allow people to respond to emergencies rapidly, efficiently and fairly (Gratwa & Bollin, 2002:19). Moreover, DRR serves as a platform where people can be involved from the initial development of the programme until its implementation (Patterson et al., 2008:127). Through DRR, an emphasis on affected communities’ was discerned which slowly led to the official development of an approach now known as Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) (Shaw, 2012:6).

The practice of CBDRR was achieved through the creation of national and international networks of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations involved in grassroots activities (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:713).

The application of the CBDRR process became more and more apparent after the realisation that DRR could be more effective if it applies ideas of local people who

(27)

hazards directly affect (Patterson et al., 2008:127). CBDRR, which is a sub-component of DRR, is a fundamental form of participant empowerment and a compelling mechanism for enforcing the transmission of ideas from the members of communities that hazards directly affect, into long term risk reduction programmes (Allen, 2006:83). CBDRR emphasises a major role that communities that hazards directly affect can play in DRR (Habiba & Shaw, 2012:109). People in affected communities are capable of finding collective solutions to situations that they face (Shaw, 2012:4). This is done through utilising their experiences and cultural beliefs in CBDRR process to find long term risks reduction measures. CBDRR addresses vulnerability by engaging both local communities in conjunction with government and other external actors in capacity-building (Allen, 2006:82).

In order to promote further use of proactive approaches, the Hyogo Framework for action was adopted. In 2005, the World Conference on Disaster Reduction held in Kobe, adopted the Hyogo Declaration referred to as the Hyogo Framework for action (HFA) (UNISDR, 2005). The HFA is an internationally agreed framework for DRR to increase the resilience of nations and communities (Arnold, 2012:608). According to UNISDR (2013:1) the framework has been well received among many nations and well adopted in achieving resilience of communities at risk. However, there has been a key challenge in finding the resources to ensure that frameworks and principles become operational (UNISDR, 2013:1). The framework aims to reduce the risk of natural hazards through logical efforts to evaluate and manage their causal factors, including reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property and improved preparedness for adverse events (Djalante et al., 2012:778).

The UN’s framework for reducing disaster risk by 2015 calls on governments, among other stakeholder’s to do five things. These five priorities can be viewed in the figure below and are referred to as the five ‘priority areas’ (PAs) of the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA).

(28)

Figure 1: The Key five priority areas of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA): (Adopted from Arnold 2012:610).

The third priority area emphasises the use of knowledge and innovation to strengthen culture of safety and resilience at all levels including communities (Arnold, 2012:610). This priority area relates well to CBDRR as it embraces the strengthening of community level capacities to become resilient and be able to resist further risks (UNSIDR, 2005). In addition, it is an important area as it addresses the root causes of vulnerabilities by involving the local people and utilises their knowledge and resources to introduce long term responsive strategies. Delica-Willsion and Gaillard (2012:701) further support the idea of incorporating local people and using their knowledge stating that communities’ responses are normally shaped from personal feelings, values, own experiences, cultural beliefs, social and societal dynamics.

Moreover, the use of local people’s knowledge relates well with the definition of Douglas et al., (2007:150) on CBDRR that CBDRR is a specific form of local-level capacity building and it represents the increasing important element of vulnerability reduction through community members themselves. CBDRR strategies are

1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation

2. Identify, assess and monitor risks and enhance early warning systems

3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels.

4. Reduce underlying risk factors in all sectors

5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels

(29)

indigenous and develop from the local people’s own personal experiences and traditional knowledge. The HFA (2005:35) stipulated that traditional knowledge and experiences are essential for long-term and sustainable strategies in dealing with hazards.

One case study that illustrates the importance of using experiences and traditional knowledge in CBDRR is the use of traditional knowledge in community-based DRR in Zimbabwe (Murwira, 2012:106). After a serious drought in 1992 in the south-east part of the country, the Chivi community undertook a CBDRR process to develop local plans in order to overcome the food insecurity in the community. Through the CBDRR process, community members created a platform to share their past experiences of droughts and other hazards (Murwira, 2012:106). Moreover, through the CBDRR platform the community could revive its traditional knowledge and shared skills on how each member survived droughts in previous years. Out of the CBDRR initiative, the community also built upon the shared skills and knowledge with assistance of modern methods such as pest control, to come up with strategies that could allow them to sustainably survive the droughts in the long-term (Murwira, 2012:106). These strategies included livestock and crop breeding, vegetable irrigation and fencing, selectively bred and shared seeds and livestock fairs with other communities. This case study illustrates how the rural Chivi community could reduce their vulnerability and strengthen their capacity in facing droughts by sharing previous experiences and exchanging traditional knowledge.

It was through using the principles of CBDRR that food security in the Chivi community was enhanced and that subsequent droughts did not cause hunger. The community not only used their knowledge and experiences but combined these with new technologies such as pest control to build strategies they were able to sustain over time. The community now has a broad crop and livestock diversity that enables them to counter the effects of droughts (Murwira, 2012:101).

A second example explores a Japanese Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction initiative implemented through ‘town-watching’ (Tsunozaki, 2012:719). On the western part of Japan, the Ehime Prefecture coastal community in Saijo had experienced frequent flooding and escalating impacts almost every year. Through a local implementation of a CBDRR programme, the community members highlighted

(30)

the importance of monitoring the sea level as early warning to evacuate their houses (Tsunozaki, 2012:719). The community would walk through their neighbourhood and get to know the local issues and understand different environmental characteristics around the community, which were linked to the hazard (Tsunozaki, 2012:718). This also included sharing experiences of past events as well as knowing exactly the sea point at which floods could occur. The community therefore used their knowledge and past experiences to prepare evacuation routes, and prepare their shelters. Since then the impacts of the hazard were severely reduced and the community could restore their livelihoods (Tsunozaki, 2012:718).

This local initiative was not only used for DRR purposes, but these practices were also integrated into environmental management and town planning (Tsunozaki, 2012:719). This case study emphasises both the participation of local people in solving community problems and the importance of empowering community members to convert local knowledge into activities that benefits the whole community.

These case studies illustrate that CBDRR activities allow communities to take responsibility of their own situation. It also demonstrates that communities can use their knowledge, manpower and resources to successfully undertake Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction initiatives. The case studies also provide an insight into the application of traditional knowledge in attaining solutions to hazards. Moreover, past experiences and cultural beliefs can be part of information sharing that can be utilised to find solutions to hazards.

Hence, local initiatives driven by the local people using traditional knowledge and experiences can be regarded as sustainable (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:719). These types of local initiatives are also referred to as local CBDRR activities and are considered to be one of the sustainable approaches to risk reduction in affected areas (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:719). The local CBDRR initiatives are referred to as sustainable approaches to risk reduction since such approaches use local resources and traditional knowledge to develop strategies to deal with the hazard. These strategies then become community members' norm of dealing with the hazard and eventually their way of living (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:719). Communities were found to easily apply and understand strategies they have

(31)

developed themselves compared to when they had to understand and apply strategies that were adopted outside their community (Patterson et al., 2008:127). Arnold (2012:611) also supports the argument by stating that Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction initiatives are one of the most sustainable ways to reduce the risk to hazards at local levels. The UNISDR (1998) also supports this and stipulates that disaster risk reduction is most effective at the community level because it is at the local level that the specific needs of the community can be met. Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction practitioners responsible for implementing initiatives need to consider the potential of local capacities and resources. Today the CBDRR concept is widely encouraged to be one of the strategies that can be used at local levels to reduce underlying risks, and enhance people’s capacity to cope with natural hazards and in turn, reducing the impact of hazards (Izumi & Shaw, 2012:36).

In order to make CBDRR clear, the following section discusses the concept of CBDRR in more depth. The section looks at various definitions of CBDRR, how it evolved over time and the importance of Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction.

2.3 Definition of CBDRR and its importance

Douglas et al., (2007:150) describes CBDRR as a specific form of local-level capacity building and the representation of increasing important elements of vulnerability reduction and risk reduction strategies. The ADPC (2006:12) defines CBDRR as a process within a community and for the community where solutions for dealing with risks progresses from the community itself and not from higher authorities.

Previously disaster management functioned mainly in a top down manner, which was highly criticised of being very bureaucratic and often operating under obvious political constraints that impose ineffectiveness of emergency service delivery (Benson et al., 2001:205). Because of this, actions of the communities under such systems were characterised by the following: (i) reduced participation that results in failure to meet the vital needs of societies, (ii) a redundant increase in the

(32)

requirement for external resources, and (iii) overall dissatisfaction over performance despite the use of outstanding management measures (Shaw, 2012:5).

In recognising these limitations, CBDRR promotes a bottom-up approach to address the above-mentioned challenges and difficulties (Christie & Hanlon, 2000:201). It corrects the defects of the top-down approach in disaster risk reduction which failed to address the local needs and ignored the potential of traditional knowledge of the people at risk (Habiba & Shaw, 2012:109). CBDRR focuses on pre-hazards actions in reducing risks within vulnerable communities (Shaw, 2012:5).

At the centre of CBDRR is the principle of participation of community members that hazards affect directly. Through involvement of people at risk, their ability to respond to emergencies is increased in the process through providing them with more access and control over resources and basic societal services (Shaw, 2012:4).

CBDRR speaks highly of communities and therefore it is important to define what community refers to in this context. According to Vincent (2009:58) community involves interaction among people with common interests who live in a particular area. Delica-Willison and Gaillard (2012:711) refers to community as a small aggregate of people, often located away from centres of power but sharing a common and continuous way of life, similar beliefs, close ties, trust and frequent interactions. In terms of CBDRR, a community may be defined as the delineated population living within the territorial bounds of a town or village administrative unit which is considered to be exposed to the risk of an environmental hazard (Allen, 2006:84). This may be the preferred definition of community in this context because it considers the shared environmental hazards people are exposed to and that each element of the community has a contribution to CBDRR initiatives.

Shaw (2006:69) supports the definition which argues that “community includes not only the people living in a certain location, but also the local government, local business sectors, local academic bodies, and non-government organisations (NGOs) living in the same areas as the people in that location”. Such collective membership is an important element in risk reduction specifically at community level. Therefore, more effort has been made to incorporate all the above mentioned groups of peoples’ ideas into the development of holistic risk reduction initiatives (Shaw & Okazaki, 2003). In addition, Quarantelli (1989:248) also supports the above

(33)

definition and argues that past research have indicated that disaster risk reduction have become more community based. Quarantelli (1989:248) further explains that such a practice benefits the local people. Each local person has a contribution towards the community’s long term responsive strategy. That way the CBDRR initiative’s outcome reaches the targeted population, fulfilling the ultimate goal of CBDRR, which is to bring about long term risk reduction strategies to those at risk of hazards (Chenet al., 2006:206).

According to Paul (1987:3), ordinary people are capable of finding collective solutions to situations that they face. Supporting this view Delica-Willison and Gaillard, (2012:711) add that communities’ reactions toward hazards are usually formed from past familiarities, personal feelings and collective dynamics. Local communities analyse their hazardous conditions, vulnerabilities and capacities as they see them. Vital to any strategy for any disaster risk reduction initiative is the significance of understanding how communities interpret risk and choose actions based on their understandings (Eiser et al., 2012:5). CBDRR strategies, if implemented in a participatory manner, enables the local people to express their real necessities and priorities, allowing hazards to be well-defined and risk reduction procedures to be designed and implemented correctly (Merceret al., 2007:250). To conclude, CBDRR aims to strengthen coping and adaptive abilities at the local level where the initial effects of hazard events are experienced (Skertchly & Skertchly, 2001:30). It builds on available traditional knowledge and experiences as well as resources to enable local people to cope with hazardous conditions and become increasingly self-reliant (Rocha & Christoplos, 2001:245; Christie & Hanlon, 2000:201).

For CBDRR to be successful, it needs to achieve participation of community members. This way their knowledge and experiences are utilised in the CBDRR process. To do this, there are various principles and guidelines found in literature that governs the approach of Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR). The following section discusses the guidelines and principles of Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction.

(34)

2.4. Principles and Guidelines of CBDRR

It is important to note that relevant guidelines of development theory can in many cases, inform these CBDRR guidelines and principles. This is because both the development theory and CBDRR share some similar principles and guidelines in literature and both of these approaches aim to build capacity for people to manage their own processes in terms of a development process or the CBDRR process (Servaes, 2007:497; Habiba & Shaw, 2012:107; Shaw, 2012:5). A detailed description of the close link between development and Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction follow.

2.4.1. The relationship between CBDRR and Development Theory

It is widely debated that international development practices rest on the assumption that community based programmes are essential components to foster sustainable livelihoods and alleviate poverty in many developing countries (World Bank, 2002). This is because of the way in which community based programmes have revealed quite extensive achievements in improving conditions of many poor communities (World Bank, 2002). These achievements include the empowerment of many marginalised groups, an increased capacity towards collective action and the strengthened capabilities for community members to undertake self-initiated development activities (Mansuri & Rao, 2004:15). Moreover the potential gains of developmental community based programmes are undoubtedly large (Mansuri & Rao, 2004:15). Developmental community based programmes enabled the reversal of existing power relations in many communities to create an opportunity to voice the situation of the poor and at the same time, to give them more control over developmental programmes (Mansuri & Rao, 2004:15). Owing to developmental programmes, many governments of the developing world could have been enhanced to be more responsive and able to deliver better public goods and services (Mansuri

(35)

& Rao, 2004:15). It also enabled governments to better maintain community assets and enhance community members to be more informed and involved in community affairs (Mansuri & Rao, 2004:15).

Overall it has been established that development activities became a means of empowering people to initiate actions on their own and thus influence the processes and outcomes of the development process (Paul, 1987:46). This indicates the potential that lies within community-based programmes. It is important to argue that some of the development theory guidelines are indeed important for successful implementation of CBDRR processes. In the context of CBDRR it is expected that community based programmes may become the gateways to nations that are free of disaster victims (Shaw, 2012:10). This is because of the way Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction has hoped to reduce risks through community-based programmes (Pandey & Okazaki, 2005:1). Therefore, relevant guidelines in development theory might greatly assist with the process of reducing risk successfully.

Furthermore, arguing the relation between CBDRR and development theory in terms of literature, Thomalla et al., (2006:40) explain that linking development to disaster risk reduction is a crucial aspect within a broad view of Disaster Risk Reduction. Implementation of the development theory has achieved quite high rates of improved living standards of many people through community-based projects (Mansuri & Rao, 2004:15). DRR on the other hand aims to reduce the risks and minimise hazards’ impacts through Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) projects. CBDRR practitioners are also aiming at reducing risks of hazards through community-based projects, but it is advisable that CBDRR practitioners learn lessons from development theory and avoid gaps established in development literature to increase their success rates (Shaw, 2012:6). Moreover development theory has stressed the importance of participation of people in processes aiming to improve their living standards (Cohen & Uphoff, 1980:220). This can be applied to the CBDRR context namely that people at risk need to participate in the CBDRR process so that the outcomes reach everyone at risk (Gaillard & Mercer, 2013:99). This is also an important aspect that the CBDRR process can rely on. Though development initiatives do not necessarily aim to reduce the risk of hazards, development

(36)

initiatives also seek to empower people to manage their own development process (Mohan & Stokke, 2000:264). This implies that peoples’ capacities are enhanced and in the context of CBDRR people have the capacity and are empowered to address various forms of vulnerabilities (Delica-Willison & Gaillard, 2012:716). Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) and developmental agencies share a common inspiration of promoting and maintaining sustainable community based projects (Shaw, 2012:5). It is therefore important that should CBDRR initiatives aim for sustainable outcomes through community-based programmes, then CBDRR processes should consider the guidelines which development theory applies to achieve successful outcomes through community projects (Thomalla et al., 2006:38).

Important guidelines from development theory relevant to this study include the use of traditional knowledge and community participation. Guidelines and principles found in CBDRR literature include the understanding of community structures, the capacity of community members, political will and the training of community members. In this study, guidelines from development theory and from CBDRR will be considered and inform guidelines for implementing CBDRR activities (Shaw, 2012:6).

2.4.2 Traditional knowledge

One of the important guidelines of CBDRR is that of traditional knowledge (Shaw, 2012:6). In an effort to survive, local communities used traditional knowledge and skills they have acquired over years of trial and error (Mosimane, 1998:26). This knowledge is bound up in the social structures and culture of the community. Rural communities in many countries have stores of traditional knowledge that were undervalued and underutilised in Disaster Risk Reduction activities (Brokensha et al., 1980:25). Shaw et al., (2009:209) consider traditional knowledge as the crucial guide to insight into effective solutions of hazards.

It has been established in development theory that the use of traditional knowledge in community based programmes has led to quite high rates of success in developmental community-based projects (Briggs, 2005:99). For authors like

(37)

Gorjestani (2004:6), traditional knowledge represents a possible alternative in progress among the world’s rural poor communities. Gorjestani (2004:6) explains that traditional knowledge could bring about change that comes from within communities themselves by applying traditional expertise to ensure economic and social progress. There has been a central debate about sustainability of traditional knowledge because of ways in which traditional knowledge has allowed local people to live in peace with the environment for centuries (Briggs, 2005:100).

Therefore, in the CBDRR context indigenous people have strategies that allow them to survive in hazardous environmental conditions. Furthermore, if the local people's strategies as they utilise it are applied through the CBDRR processes within the CBDRR plans, long-term and effective solutions to hazards could be achieved. Huntington (2000:1270) argues that traditional knowledge, as first-hand foundation was utilised as a tool in understanding and forecasting possible environmental events upon which many livelihoods and even survival of such local people depend. Similarly, in the context of CBDRR, the same can be said for traditional knowledge. Therefore, traditional knowledge can be used as a way in which communities can prepare themselves to respond to hazards as well as to find long term solutions for the hazard in their environments.

Traditional knowledge is the origin of traditional surviving techniques suitable for specific environmental events and has been established from previous experiences in dealing with hazards (Shaw, 2012:6). When the local people are exposed to a certain hazardous condition, the local people are always the first to respond to the situation before any external assistance arrives (Shaw, 2012:6). This is done using resources that are already available to the local population and thus allows for a timely response (Shaw, 2012:7). A study on local capacity-building in the Philippines found that many local populations have a huge extent of traditional knowledge related to their vulnerabilities and potential capacities on how to respond to a certain hazard (Allen, 2006:83). This emphasises the strength in the knowledge and resources of the local populations.

Literature around development theory has also indicated various factors that were perceived to have altered the success of many developmental projects (Mansuri & Rao, 2004:20). This includes the notion of external organisations that implemented

Community response to annual flooding and Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) : the case of Oshakati Town

Table of Contents

Contents (Continued)

Contents (Continued)

Contents (Continued)

Contents (Continued)